Civil Litigation
Admiralty & Maritime
Construction Law
Nursing Home Litigation
Appeals
Civil Rights
Consumer Rights
Medical Malpractice
Products Liability
Premise Liability
Trucking/Auto Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Bad Faith Litigation





Appeals

 


M.R. v. ABC
After father's death during paternity suit, the mother, the firm's client, moved to substitute personal representative. The trial court denied motion. The mother appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that filing a claim in the probate division was not a condition precedent to the substitution of the putative father's personal representative.
>>back to top


Crawford v. Weaver, Kuvin, Weaver & Lipton, P.A.
The trial court dismissed the firm's client's complaint for failure to serve process, and the client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that, the complaint should be reinstated.
>>back to top


E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., v. Castillo ex rel. Castillo
Child born with rare birth defect sued the firm's client, the owner of a farm. It was alleged that the farm sprayed an agricultural fungicide on field as mother walked by. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdict against the firm's client, and they appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that plaintiffs' scientific evidence on teratology of fungicide did not satisfy Frye test for admissibility.
>>back to top


Perez v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Car owner sued the firm's client, a store, for damages suffered when his car was stolen from store's care and subsequently recovered in damaged condition. After judgment was entered on jury verdict in the client's favor, the trial court, denied the clients motion to have the losing car owner pay for attorneys fees under demand for judgment statute. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the client's pre-demand costs were included in determining whether "judgment obtained" was 25% more than demand for judgment.
>>back to top


American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Hoeffer
Firm's client brought products liability action. After jury returned verdict in favor of defendant, the trial court, granted the client's motion for new trial. Defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that clients were entitled to new trial based on juror's failure to disclose during voir dire that she had been a co-defendant in prior litigation.
>>back to top


St. Augustine Beach Investors, Ltd. v. McGlinchy
Injured hotel visitor and his wife brought action against the firm's hotel client. The trial court denied the client's motion to dismiss or transfer action. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that venue was improper and client's motion should have been granted.
>>back to top


Mizrahi v. North Miami Medical Center, Ltd.
Surviving adult children brought wrongful death action against firm's hospital client and various physicians who had treated decedent. The trial court entered summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed. On motion for rehearing and/or clarification, the District Court of Appeal, held that equal protection guarantees of federal and state Constitutions were not violated by statute precluding recovery of nonpecuniary damages by decedent's adult children where cause of death was medical malpractice.
>>back to top


Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Perez
Motorist brought personal injury action for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident with truck owned by firm's client. The trial court entered judgment in favor of motorist. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) truck owner should have been allowed to call injured motorist's treating physicians to elicit fact testimony, and (2) motorist's treating physicians should not have been classified as expert witnesses. The client received a new trial.
>>back to top


J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Quiroz
The firm's client brought a negligence action arising from intersectional auto accident. The trial court entered judgment on a favorable jury verdict holding that defendant truck driver was grossly negligent, and that defendant corporation, whose principal was defendant driver's father, was equitable owner of truck and was thus also liable for its operation under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The defendant corporation appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) corporation retained its equitable ownership of truck at time of accident.
>>back to top


Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Gonzalez
Construction worker who was injured in fall while working on county rapid transit project brought negligence action against the firm's engineering client and another engineer which had provided consulting services for project. At trial the firm's client was found not at fault. Engineer which was found to be at fault appealed, and the District Court of appeal held that: (1) firms had not through their contract entered into joint venture, and (2) issue of whether firms could nonetheless be held jointly and severally liable was for jury.
>>back to top


Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Rosenberger
Plaintiff brought personal injury action against the firm's client, a truck rental company. Plaintiff alleged that the client was vicariously liable, as owner of rented truck, for one-vehicle accident occurring in Montana while plaintiff's father was driving truck. The trial court denied the client's motion to dismiss. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) Montana substantive law would apply, and (2) order denying motion would be reversed.
>>back to top


Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampolsky
The trial court's order granting summary judgment finding the firm's auto dealer client liable in case is reversed.
>>back to top


Lane v. Estate of Morton
Driver of recreational vehicle sued the firm's client, a landowner, for injuries sustained when he was criminally attacked by unknown assailants while riding vehicle on landowner's private property. The Trial court granted summary judgment for the client. The driver appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that firm's landowner client did not breach its duty to warn of dangerous conditions by failing to warn about danger of criminal assaults on property.
>>back to top


Garcia v. X-tra Super Food Centers, Inc.
The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the firm's grocery store client because, there was no evidence as to how long the particular grains which caused the fall had been on the floor. The Court of Appeals found this to be correct and affirmed the client's victory.
>>back to top

Duarte v. Wetzel
Motorist sued driver and firm's client, the car owner for injuries sustained when driver's vehicle struck motorist's vehicle. The Trial court granted summary judgment for the client. The motorist appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that driver did not have implied consent of the client to operate vehicle, and the client was not liable for the accident.
>>back to top


Baudo v. Bon Secours Hospital/Villa Maria Nursing Center
The firm's client, an elderly slip and fall victim executed releases in favor of shopping mall and its management company in settlement of victim's claims. The client then brought a medical negligence action against hospital and nursing home for a serious bedsore that he developed while convalescing. The trial court entered summary judgment for hospital and nursing home on basis of release given to the mall in the prior case. The client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the release did not operate to release or discharge liability of hospital or nursing home.
>>back to top


American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Martinez
Hurricane Andrew homeowners case. Jury verdict in favor of firm's client, the homeowners insurance company, was affirmed.
>>back to top


Pearson v. DeLamerens
The firm's client, the mother of killed child, brought a wrongful death action as personal representative of child's estate against physicians who had treated child. The physicians made offer to settle action in which mother would be awarded $700,000 and father $10,000. The mother accepted the offer and independent counsel representing father provisionally accepted the offer after being unable to contact father. The District Court of Appeal held that actions of mother in settling claim did not adversely affect interests of father as would warrant apportionment of settlements.
>>back to top


Laks v. X-tra Super Food Centers, Inc
Store patron brought action against the firm's client, a storeowner, to recover for injuries sustained in accident involving motorized sliding glass door. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the client, but the patron appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the injury was caused by freakish and improbable chain of events which was unquestionably unforeseeable, and the client was not responsible.
>>back to top

Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
Parties injured in automobile accident brought action against the fir's client, a truck owner, seeking damages for injuries sustained in accident and aggravation of previously existing conditions. The trial court granted the client's motion to compel execution of medical record releases. The injured parties appealed. The Supreme Court held that: (1) parties injured in automobile accident were required to sign medical authorization form to allow opposing party to obtain out-of-state medical records, and (2) out-of-state medical records of parties injured in automobile accident were non-privileged, potentially relevant and discoverable documents.
>>back to top


Ocean Elec. Co. v. Hughes Laboratories, Inc.
Retailer brought action to recover for water damage to its goods after the employee of the firm's client lost balance and a grabbed sprinkler head. The trial court determined the fair market value of damaged goods was the retail-selling price. The client arguing that that was too high appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that "fair market value" of retailer's inventory damaged by the client's negligence was a lower amount, the retailer's reasonable cost of replacement in wholesale market not retail selling price.
>>back to top


State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
The firm's client was the owner of the front half of a tractor/trailer rig, which had settled personal injury action arising out of collision. It had leased the tractor, to the trailer owner. The Trial court entered judgment in favor of the client, and trailer owner and insurer appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the client was to be awarded ½ of the amount it had paid to settle the case.
>>back to top


KFD Aviation, Inc. v. Knight Aero Corp.
The firm's client, an aircraft broker sued for a commission. The defendant moved to dismiss alleging no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found that the client's complaint alleged a sufficient jurisdictional basis to comply with Florida's long-arm statute and that the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Florida.
>>back to top


Underhill v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
The firm's client was fired and then denied unemployment benefits. The District Court of Appeal held that client's refusal to execute document stating that her submission to drug test was voluntary, when in fact testing was compulsory, was not employment misconduct that disqualified her from unemployment compensation benefits.
>>back to top


Rouzie v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.
Navy buyer's warehouseman brought action against seller and the firm's client, a transport carrier, to recover for injury caused by manually unloading sign posts. The trial court directed verdict in favor of the client. The injured warehouseman appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that client was not liable, as they had no duty to load sign posts to enable Navy buyer's warehouseman to unload them mechanically.
>>back to top


Vazquez v. X-tra Super Food Centers, Inc.
A patron slipped on a piece of candy and fell in the client's grocery store. The trial court ruled that the client was not liable. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court was correct, as the undisputed facts do not show actual notice to the client that there was candy in the shopping aisle.
>>back to top


Medrano v. BEC Construction Corporation
In personal injury action, the firm's construction company client wanted the plaintiff examined by its chosen doctor. The plaintiff wanted to bring in a videotape operator to record the examination, the trial court refused t allow this and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct, and the client's doctor should not be required to have the video operator in the room.
>>back to top


Donner v. Appalachian Ins. Co.
Plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by firm's client in a previous action. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. The District Court of Appeal, held that the complaint failed to state cognizable claim against the client, and was correctly dismissed.
>>back to top


Rodriguez v. American United Ins. Co.
The firm's client brought action against her insurer after she learned that she did not have uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, and the client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that material issues of fact existed as to whether the client was improperly precluded from learning prior to her accident that her vehicle was not in fact as fully covered as she had intended.
>>back to top


Sullivan v. Silver Palm Properties, Inc.
Passenger brought suit against the firm's landowner client alleging that tree roots caused bumps in road which resulted in loss of control of automobile. The trial court found for the passenger, and landowner appealed. The Supreme Court held that landowner client did not have duty to retard subterranean root growth of trees located adjacent to public right-of-way.
>>back to top


International Ins. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
Action was brought regarding insurance coverage for accident involving rented vehicle. The trial court entered summary judgment declaring renter's insurer provided primary coverage, not the firm's client, the rental company. The District Court of Appeal held that bold type addendum to lease agreement was effective to shift burden of providing primary insurance coverage from the client to the renter's insurer.
>>back to top


Watson v. City of Hialeah
Estate of murder victim brought suit against the firm's client, a city, seeking to hold it liable for victim's murder by two police officers. The trial court found the client not liable. The estate appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that even if the client was negligent in failing to discharge, reassign, or transfer police officers, the client could not be held liable for victim's murder.
>>back to top


Race v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
Insured husband and wife brought action against the firm's client, an uninsured motorist insurance company, to compel arbitration and to recover damages. The trial court granted the couple a judgment, and the client appealed. The Supreme Court held that the couple was not entitled to recover from the client.
>>back to top


Continental Ins. Co. v. City of Miami Beach
An Insurance company sued the firm's client, a city, for defense of a lawsuit. The trial court entered summary judgment for the client, and the insurance company appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the company's failure to ask for the client's approval as to independent counsel appointed to defend city and failure to keep city apprised of progress of underlying suit precluded them from denying coverage to the client.
>>back to top


Campbell v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
The firm's client, an automobile insurance company, sought judgment declaring that the automobile policy it issued to a mother provided no liability coverage for claim made by emancipated daughter who was injured in automobile accident allegedly caused by mother's negligence. The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of the client, yet the daughter appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the client's automobile policy specifically excluded coverage for the mother's children, thus precluding recovery by daughter under the client's policy.
>>back to top


Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davey Ins. Associates, Inc.
The firm's client brought an action against its insurance agency. The trial court found for the agency, and the client appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that the case should not have been dismissed as issues were for a jury to decide.
>>back to top


U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co
An excess liability insurer brought an action seeking declaratory relief and indemnification from the firm's client, a primary insurer, for coverage it provided in defending race and sex discrimination actions. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the client. The Court of Appeals held that excess liability insurer was not entitled to indemnification from the client.
>>back to top

 
  © 2000-2005 by Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer